The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Ze-Jamz]

Corr blimey...

If i had a pound........

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Seadog

No wonder Galland asked for a squadron of Spitfires...

Are you serious?

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

@Seadog : this graph is highly controversial... but you know that alrdy

Anything that shows Luftwaffe aircraft trailing RAF aircraft in performance is automatically deemed "controversial" by the 100 Octane Deniers club.

[Seadog]

bugmenot.


Do you know of any Me109e pilot accounts of using the 1min rating in the BofB during combat?

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

To get the ball rolling, I will start.

All the evidence I have seen, which is mostly anecdotal suggests that; during the Battle of Britain, the early marks of both aircraft were very similar in performance, so similar in fact that victory was nearly always the result of things not related to the aircraft themselves, like pilot skill, numbers of aircrafts and tactical advantages (altitude, fuel, etc.)

Who's next?

That's all you need to say really. Everything else argued about in terms of relative performance and handling characteristics on these boards between the Spitfire and '109 (or the reds v the blues) is because we sit in the comfort of our own homes chasing pixels around a screen with a refly button.

The dicta Boelcke was valid from 1915 until the advent of the guided air to air missile. Everything discussed here must be considered within the context of historical reality. That reality was make sure you see your opponent first. Manoeuvre into a position of tactical advantage. Fire and then manoeuvre to retain the tactical advantage.

All successful fighter pilots were able to creep up behind their victims, blew their brains out and run away to do it again.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

The dicta Boelcke was valid from 1915 until the advent of the guided air to air missile. Everything discussed here must be considered within the context of historical reality. That reality was make sure you see your opponent first. Manoeuvre into a position of tactical advantage. Fire and then manoeuvre to retain the tactical advantage.

All successful fighter pilots were able to creep up behind their victims, blew their brains out and run away to do it again.

It's true in real life, but ingame the things are a little different... because of this there are so many threads about aircraft's raw performance. Aircraft skills are far more important here than in real life.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Anything that shows Luftwaffe aircraft trailing RAF aircraft in performance is automatically deemed "controversial" by the 100 Octane Deniers club.

That's not true. I don't have any preferences for the LuftW. I fly red as much as I fly on blue side. The only thing I am battling is the Fantasies of some Spit's illusionists. So I am a non-believer of the theories some are putting frwrd. And once more, this is legitimate in a forum (read it in the ancient roman sense).

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

That's not true. I don't have any preferences for the LuftW. I fly red as much as I fly on blue side. The only thing I am battling is the Fantasies of some Spit's illusionists. So I am a non-believer of the theories some are putting frwrd. And once more, this is legitimate in a forum (read it in the ancient roman sense).

Which "fantasies" are you referring to?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Which "fantasies" are you referring to?

Fantasies like this one?

No wonder Galland asked for a squadron of Spitfires...

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Which "fantasies" are you referring to?

I think he means the ones where the Spitfire is credited with 'any' comparative ability against the 109.